DIY re-amp components ?

GroupDIY Audio Forum

Help Support GroupDIY Audio Forum:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.

jcase

New member
Joined
Jun 5, 2004
Messages
4
Hey all, i bet this was in the lost archives somewhere, but what do the geniuses use when building 're-amp' boxes ? does anyone have schems or part lists ?

it's seems like a pretty straight-forward project, a pair of transformers and some wire crammed into a box, but there must be some hidden considerations ! What d'ya think ?
 
Also this:
http://www.ionrecords.com/tapeop/ampinterface.jpg

...which I drew before I even saw the Jensen schematic. But it's no surprise that they're similar, since it's a simple problem with a fairly obvious solution :grin:

For the transformer, you can use an Edcor WSM10k/150 if you're on a budget.

Funny, the guy who makes the commercial "ReA.." devices usually comes out of the woodwork right about now, guns blazing... Sometimes I think he sits at his PC and plugs the word "ReA..." into Google all day. :roll:

What am I talking about? Look here: http://messageboard.tapeop.com/viewtopic.php?t=11488
 
How did he manage to get a patent on that? That's crazy!! Well, I'll just build my own then!
 
What an a-hole :roll:

Reamp . Cuniberti . you're . a . douchebag .. google that :green:

Can't believe he was able to patent that :shock:
 
You wouldn't believe some of what gets patented, mostly by big corporations looking to put the squeeze on smaller companies.

ClearChannel just patented the process of recording concerts and burning them to CD to make available the night of the show. I find this funny, because no special gear is needed at all to do this.
 
I don't believe what ClearChannel did is a patent :? more of a copyright issue.

But how can that Reamp dude patent something like that? It's not really a box, but a process.

Wasn't it Jakob who said B&K didn't patent their stuff, because it would be easier to rip off if they did? Anyone can check out those patents. I wonder what the patent looks like for the Reamp..
 
In the United States, processes and business models are allowed to be patented. I don't like it any more than you do. It has ruined the state of small business in the US.
 
http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO2&Sect2=HITOFF&p=1&u=/netahtml/search-bool.html&r=1&f=G&l=50&co1=AND&d=ptxt&s1=cuniberti.INZZ.&OS=IN/cuniberti&RS=IN/cuniberti

You'll need a TIFF plugin to view the images. You can download one here:
http://www.alternatiff.com/
 
"Methods and apparatus for reducing replays in the recording of live musical performances, and for other recording purposes, are disclosed. The apparatus includes novel audio frequency electrical signal processing devices which can be incorporated in re-recording systems by means of which "flat" recordings of original "live" instrumental and musical performances are re-recorded via effects boxes and instrument amplifiers which are different or differently set than the equipment used in making the original "live" recording, and thus the resulting re-recordings have the same apparent sound quality as recordings originally made "live" through the same effects boxes and instrument amplifiers set in the same way. The disclosed signal processing device of the invention includes an output trim control and a ground lift switch. Also disclosed are re-recording systems of the invention, and re-recording methods of the invention."

Whatever... :roll:
 
Let's learn something today. See US patent 6005950
Dave this works better (Thanks Gyraf)
It gives you PDF's although one page at a time.
If you have real Acrobat, open page one and keep adding pages behind page one! Then save the multi page file.

General link: Hint Put US before the patent #
i.e. US6005950 in the "View Patent Application" box to search for any US patent.
http://gb.espacenet.com/espacenet/gb/en/e_net.htm

Exact link:
US6005950

Think like this a "passive DI box backwards".

Take a look at figure 5.
Lets follow it.
XLR connector to a ballanced H pad PAD assume 40dB for now.
Parts 77 and 76-6 form a high freq. roll off. (to simulate a guitar speaker roll off above 5Khz).
DI Transformer wired backwards.
If you assume a high quality DI transformer like the Lundahl L1530
Wire it as a 1:7 stepup with High Z going to the guitar amp through the output pot. Warning any transformer may need the termination resistor to get best square wave response. Since you need to throw away levels in this application the connection of 1:3.5 may work better for this transformer.

I assumed +4dBm -40dB pad +16dB for transformer should give you
86mV across the pot. This should give you plenty of signal for the guitar amp.

Just plain simple.
 
There've been many discussions on BBs and Usenet regarding his audacity for filing the patent. Even still, I suppose that Sir Winston could file a patent for the process of coming to a "conclusion about his character" (even though there's plenty of prior art).

Does it have goop on the pc board, and part numbers scratched out?

There are other manufacturers (Little Labs, Millennia, I believe) who license the re-amp process and name for products of theirs. I'll just bet that they're pleased as Punch about that (of course I can't speak for them though). Oh well...it's the American way, I guess.
 
As I stated on the other messageboard--thus incurring the wrath of J.C.--it's a simple problem with a fairly obvious solution. I doubt there's any magic in the "official" ReA... design. No need to build it as shown and risk violation of patent. My circuit, Jensen's circuit, and probably twenty other possible variations should work just as well.

Patenting obvious circuits, or circuits which are already disclosed in prior art, is not unheard of--just ask Mesa-Boogie, they've done it. I don't think USPTO reviews the claims as carefully as they should.

I never had any beef with J.C. or his product. I don't know the guy and have never used his ReA.. But when he showed up on the other messageboard and started attacking me for expressing an opinion on his circuit and the patentability thereof, including false accusations of endorsing competitor's products, which I never did--well, that left a pretty poor impression on me, and apparently others as well. I'm sure I'm not the only one who noticed that he only seemed to appear when someone would bring up the subject of homemade ReA.. -type devices.
 
I thought most circuit values were in the patent-text. IIRIC the caps were more for HF (RF) filtering, not really in the audioband. Might be wrong here, but not filtering seems indeed to make more sense, since the amp and gtr-speaker are still to follow.

Peter
 
I don't see the fukkin' point in the Reamp box :? If I was reamping... sigh, I mean if I wanted to run a prerecorded track into a geetaramp I'd just run it out of an aux/bus into the amp. I don't see the need for any fancy transformer box. Don't tell me about impedance mismatching and that shit. Because it's just that. It works just fine. I'll bet it's a +40 year ol' 'trick'...

If I wanted a 5kHz filter in the chain I would put it in myself. Don't want that box telling me what sounds 'exactly' like a guitaramp... Geez, crappy products like that makes me angry :evil:
 

Latest posts

Back
Top